Debtors in possession or other estate representatives are required to pay U.S. Trustee fees during the pendency of the case. It is often assumed that other entities to whom estate property is transferred must also pay such fees until the case is closed. But as a couple of recent cases illustrate, it may be possible with careful drafting to curtail the reporting and payment of such fees once assets are transferred to a liquidating trust.
For at least the past decade, federal bankruptcy courts have routinely prohibited cannabis businesses from seeking protection under federal bankruptcy law, regardless of whether a cannabis business is legally operating under state law.
“Creative destruction” occurs when something new kills off whatever existed before it.
IPhone Example
Just think, for example, of all the creative destruction that the iPhone has wrought! It has destroyed businesses that provided telephones and phone books, cameras and film, audio recordings and players, newspapers and newsstands, and related services.
Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.
On January 20, 2023, as few courts, such as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, have consistently done, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “Bankruptcy Court”) further hewed a path for former cannabis businesses to utilize the protections of the U.S. Code's eleventh title (the "Bankruptcy Code") in spite of a mostly inhospitable (and frequently hesitant) jurisprudence--and the steady opposition of the U.S. Trustee's Office (the "UST").
The fallout from Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) closure continues to unfold, with SVB’s parent company – SVB Financial Group – filing for protection under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on Friday, March 17th.
In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.
Types of Standing
Two Generally Applicable Forms
As many parties expected, on March 17, 2023 SVB Financial Group (“SVB Financial” or the “Debtor”) the holding company for Silicon Valley Bank, commenced a case under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the Southern District of New York. Judge Martin Glenn has been assigned to the chapter 11 case. Neither Silicon Valley Bank, currently in FDIC receivership, nor its successor Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. (“SV Bridge Bank”), were included in the chapter 11 filing.
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law Professional Perspectives.
A GLOBAL LEGAL MEDIA & NISHLIS LEGAL MARKETING PUBLICATION THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: Israel’s Unicorn Success Story SNNOVATION The US-Israel Legal Review 2022 1 Contents THE US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW 2022 2 WELCOME FROM THE PUBLISHERS Global Legal Media and Nishlis Legal Marketing 4 ECONOMIC HEADWINDS, A HOT WAR AND A TRADE WAR: THE IMPACT ON ISRAEL’S COMPANIES With rising interest rates, rising inflation and reduced growth forecasts, how has that reality been faced by corporate clients and start-ups? Arnon, Tadmor-Levy provide some answers.